原文的结论是在他任职期间,整个city的pay是在稳定变大的
只谈到了new jobs
通过new job来得出整体显然是不严谨的。
再看选项:
A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.(无关选项,或者可以看作是削弱,但是没有选项C好)
B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.(绝对数,一般都是错误选项)
C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.(正确选项,很好地弥补了原文没有提到jobs that were eliminated)
D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.(加强)
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city(无关比较)
-- by 会员 取巧 (2011/5/18 22:11:21)
逻辑是这样
前提:1.New Job比Eliminated-job多
2.New Job的pay要比Average Job pay高
结论:全市的整体支出是增加的(+)
问题就在于这个单位的转换比较让人晕,其实可以把job全部转换成pay的概念,就是钱
New job每年比eliminated job多,就是每年New pay要比eliminated pay多
然后第二个条件New pay要比everage pay高
那么要去支持这个结论就是比较eliminated pay 和average pay之间的关系
所以D项如果eliminated pay和everage pay是相等的,那么条件1和2都是增加的
那么肯定可以推出结论,就是这个whole paychek肯定都是增加的,所以答案肯定是D
A的是比较New Jobs的平均收入,是这个因素内部问题完全不用考虑,它涨也好降也好,只要它每年比average高就可以,是不重要的因素,不能起到最支持结论的作用
个人理解,如有不足欢迎指出
-- by 会员 ashtreeliu (2011/5/5 3:43:30)
個人淺見,原文討論時間點範圍在Mayor D的就職之後,結論也如此。
(A) 拿Mayor D和前任比較有些scope shift了。
不過實際說明還是等待sdcar2010來指點吧。
-- by 会员 cdwayne (2011/5/5 1:02:01)